link=1330690120/43#43 date=1331027134]freediver wrote on Mar 6th, 2012 at 7:39pm:

So you think shore based fishing spots should be included in NTZs?

Nice one FD, you have followed one loaded question with another loaded question. Don't you realise by now I am not enthused by any NTZ? [/quote]

I am asking you whether shore based fishing spots should be included or excluded. Surely you are still capable of answering the question?

I don't support NTZ's, surely you are still capable of understanding that?

Quote:

Most guys, especially on the beaches, have anything up to x10 Rods going each.

I've never seen that. It would have to be a pretty slow day to get ten lines out. [/quote]

That's BS. I have never seen anyone with anywhere near ten rods going. Firstly it's illegal. Secondly it would be impractical to carry that many, cast them , keep them baited and stay out of the way of other fishermen. More than two rods is impractical.

I agree PJ. But you have to see it to believe it. I mostly see it at Stockton Beach up north as they plant em deep in the sand, and catch the salmon run.Not every guy had x10 but one guy did. Every guy definately had more than x3 rods.I see this more often these past 10 years. Fishermen with more than a few rods. I can only guess they are catching for restaurants and such is the common case in NZ.I think down south a number of Aboriginals were doing such for a Restaurant and got busted last year.

I've always liked the Father & Son sitting on the wharf having a fish, but as always - people take a mile off that metre given....just like the Fishing Industry does.

Looks like your seeing what you want to believe. I have fished beaches for many years and I have never seen it. Do you know what effort it would take to work up to 10 rods and the fact that you would have to take up 300 - 500m of beach?

I mostly see it at Stockton Beach up north as they plant em deep in the sand, and catch the salmon run.Not every guy had x10 but one guy did. Every guy definately had more than x3 rods.

Whatever, in any case it is self defeating working more than one or two rods off the beach. You will just miss bites while you are casting and rebaiting them.

I see this more often these past 10 years. Fishermen with more than a few rods. I can only guess they are catching for restaurants and such is the common case in NZ.

So you don't known that salmon are very poor eating?

The will catch less fish more often than not. If your that concerned did you ring the illegal fishing hotline? If not why not?

I think down south a number of Aboriginals were doing such for a Restaurant and got busted last year.

I've always liked the Father & Son sitting on the wharf having a fish, but as always - people take a mile off that metre given.

Just an emotive device from FD. Marine parks allow fishing at spots like that because they prefer out of sight out of mind.

...just like the Fishing Industry does. [/quote]

The Australian Fishing Industry is regulated by government scientists and fisheries managers. We have the most regulated/ restricted fishing industry in the World.

300 - 500m worth of beach Don't make me laugh.You must be crap because they just need a metre between each rod.

Oh, really? Do you ever think or check out anything before you post? If you have a meter between 'up to' ten rods then you will be spending most of your time sorting out tangles! The lines move around with the wave action, on top of that there is usually a strong sideways sweep which will drag your line/ rig down the beach. Without 30-50 m between rods one line will end up on top of another very quickly.

[120/54#54 date=1331208197]Yes I do? Do you? Can you explain how the question is loaded? If you explain perhaps I can rephrase the question so it is harder for you to give such silly excuses for not answering.

A questioned designed so that an answer will support the questioners agenda. Usually it asks for a simple yes/ no answer.

For someone with so much to say about these principles you are remarkably coy when it comes to giving your own opinion.

Your remarkably coy responding to all I have said about what is wrong with your 'principles'.

That is not what a loaded question is. The reason your answer may support my agenda is because we may actually agree on certain issues and if you admit that it would be harder for you to misrepresent the contents of this particular article. I am saying that I do not think you believe what you have written here yourself, which is why you are now unable to answer such a simple question.

A loaded question involves an assumption that you cannot directly answer the question without supporting. For example:

Why are you such an idiot?

is a loaded question because you cannot give a direct answer without implying that you are an idiot. Of course, it does not take a great mental leap to be able to respond to the question without making that implication.

So lets try this again. I will include two questions this time so it is even more obvious that the question is not loaded:

Do you think shore based fishing spots should be excluded from no take zones?

Do you think your favourite fishing spot should be excluded from no take zones?

[quote author=7E6A7D7D7C716E7D6A180 link=1330690120/56#56 date=1331246174]That is not what a loaded question is. The reason your answer may support my agenda is because we may actually agree on certain issues and if you admit that it would be harder for you to misrepresent the contents of this particular article. I am saying that I do not think you believe what you have written here yourself, which is why you are now unable to answer such a simple question.

If what I have written is so unbelievable then why can't you counter it? Most of it you have simply ignored.

A loaded question involves an assumption that you cannot directly answer the question without supporting. For example:

Why are you such an idiot?

is a loaded question because you cannot give a direct answer without implying that you are an idiot. Of course, it does not take a great mental leap to be able to respond to the question without making that implication.

Yes and your questions are exactly the same. You cannot give a direct answer without implying that NTZ's are a done deal and the only legitimate debate is about where they should be placed!

PS: Asking for a yes/ no answer is another giveaway for a loaded question.

So lets try this again. I will include two questions this time so it is even more obvious that the question is not loaded:

PJ subjugates all principles, including common sense itself, to his opposition to marine parks.

Quote:

You cannot give a direct answer without implying that NTZ's are a done deal

So you refuse to answer the question on the grounds that it may involve acknowleding reality?

Answering the question implies nothing about your support for marine parks in general or the liklihood of their use. This is all just your overactive imagination. Either that or a really lame excuse you had to come up with when you realised you have spent a few pages arguing indirectly against a principle that you cannot bring yourself to oppose directly becuase you would then look even sillier than you do now.

Quote:

and the only legitimate debate is about where they should be placed

Can you explain how answering a question implies that no other questions are worth asking?

Quote:

Asking for a yes/ no answer is another giveaway for a loaded question.

I did not ask for a yes/no answer. Any kind of answer would be better than your BS excuses.

PJ, if you had the opportunity to exclude your favourite fishing spot from a NTZ, would you refuse the opportunity on the grounds that it is a loaded question?

If you had a choice between vanilla and chocolate ice cream, would you refuse to choose unless they included your favourite flavour?